cvs commit: ports/security/gnutls Makefile

[Kris Kennaway]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2005 at 04:38:02PM +0400, Roman Bogorodskiy wrote:
>  Kris wrote:
> 
> > > > >   Modified files:
> > > > >     security/gnutls      Makefile 
> > > > >   Log:
> > > > >   Don't CONFLICTS with gnutls-devel since it has been removed.
> > > > 
> > > > What if users still have it installed?
> > > 
> > > There were no ports which depended on gnutls-devel in ports tree. So I
> > > don't think many users have it installed. And if they really have, I
> > > suppose they should use security/gnutls instead. Though I can revive
> > > CONFLICTS if you think it is needed.
> > 
> > I'm pretty sure there were, previously.
> 
> Even if there were, I think it's quite obvious that port which has been
> removed from the ports tree should be deinstalled from user's system, 
> isn't it? BTW, portupgrade notes when there are such kind of ports in
> the system.
> 
> I think the proper solution is deinstalling obsolete port (i.e. gnutls-devel
> in our case) from the system, but not CONFLICTing with dead ports' ghosts.
> And Porters Handbook doesn't say we should CONFLICT with nonexistent ports.
> 
> Am I missing something?

The point of CONFLICTS is to prevent two ports from spamming each
other with the same installed files.  That's exactly what would happen
if someone still has gnutls-devel installed (it was only removed a few
days ago) and tries to install this one, so it makes perfect sense to
me that you should keep it there.

Kris


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/cvs-all/attachments/20050910/74d1fe3c/attachment.bin